Dublin Convention

Timeline

15 June 1990
The Dublin Convention was signed in Dublin on and entered into force on 1 September 1997.
1 September 1997
The Dublin Convention was signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990 and entered into force on .
21 January 2011
Belgium and Greece (European Court of Human Rights, ) and N.S.
21 December 2011
Secretary of State for the Home Department* (CJEU, ), courts ruled that member states cannot transfer applicants to countries where they would face systemic…

Research it like a delegate

Research on modeldiplomat.com

Ask a follow-up about Dublin Convention

Open a cited briefing in Model Diplomat search — timelines, positions, and sources you can use in committee or exam answers.

Start research on Dublin Convention

Example

In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece that Belgium violated the ECHR by returning an Afghan asylum seeker to Greece under the Dublin Convention.

Keep learning

Go deeper than the definition

Explore all Global Affairs lessons Test yourself with a quiz

Timeline

15 June 1990

The Dublin Convention was signed in Dublin on and entered into force on 1 September 1997.

1 September 1997

The Dublin Convention was signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990 and entered into force on .

21 January 2011

Belgium and Greece (European Court of Human Rights, ) and N.S.

21 December 2011

Secretary of State for the Home Department* (CJEU, ), courts ruled that member states cannot transfer applicants to countries where they would face systemic…

Research it like a delegate

The Dublin Convention was signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990 and entered into force on 1 September 1997. Its core purpose was to prevent two problems in the European asylum system: "asylum shopping," where applicants lodged claims in several member states, and "refugees in orbit," where no state accepted responsibility for examining a claim. The Convention established a hierarchy of criteria — family links, prior visas or residence permits, and finally the state of first irregular entry — to identify a single member state responsible for each asylum application.

The original Convention was superseded by Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 ("Dublin II"), which folded the rules into EU law, and later by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 ("Dublin III"), still in force at the time of writing. Together with the Eurodac fingerprint database, the Dublin system allows authorities to identify where an applicant first entered the Schengen/EU area and to transfer them back to that state.

The framework has been heavily criticised for placing disproportionate burdens on frontline states such as Greece, Italy, Malta, and Spain. In M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (European Court of Human Rights, 21 January 2011) and N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (CJEU, 21 December 2011), courts ruled that member states cannot transfer applicants to countries where they would face systemic deficiencies in asylum procedures or inhuman and degrading treatment.

During the 2015–2016 migration crisis the system effectively broke down, prompting Germany to suspend Dublin returns for Syrian applicants. The European Commission has since proposed replacing Dublin III with a new Pact on Migration and Asylum, which EU institutions adopted in 2024, introducing a "solidarity mechanism" for relocation or financial contributions alongside revised responsibility rules.

Frequently asked questions

Is the original Dublin Convention still in force?

No. It was replaced by Dublin II (Regulation 343/2003) and then Dublin III (Regulation 604/2013), which remains the operative instrument pending implementation of the 2024 EU Pact on Migration and Asylum.

Which country is usually responsible under Dublin rules?

After family-reunification and visa criteria are checked, responsibility typically falls on the member state where the applicant first irregularly entered EU territory, identified via the Eurodac fingerprint database.

Can a state refuse to transfer an asylum seeker under Dublin?

Yes. Following M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011) and N.S. (2011), transfers must be suspended where there are systemic deficiencies in the receiving state's asylum system that risk inhuman or degrading treatment.

Research Dublin Convention like a delegate

Timeline

Research it like a delegate

Ask a follow-up about Dublin Convention

Go deeper than the definition

Take Dublin Convention beyond the glossary

Research Dublin Convention like a delegate

Timeline

Research it like a delegate

Ask a follow-up about Dublin Convention

Frequently asked questions

Is the original Dublin Convention still in force?

Which country is usually responsible under Dublin rules?

Can a state refuse to transfer an asylum seeker under Dublin?

Go deeper than the definition

Take Dublin Convention beyond the glossary

Frequently asked questions

Is the original Dublin Convention still in force?

Which country is usually responsible under Dublin rules?

Can a state refuse to transfer an asylum seeker under Dublin?